Joshua Franco Professor Nanci Carr BLAW 481 Paul H. Cherry v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Group Issue: Can Chase Manhattan recover from Cherry for breaching the acceleration clause? Rules: • An acceleration clause: Is a provision in a mortgage that provides the lender to collect the entire amount that a debtor owes in debt if the debtor becomes late even if one payment is missed. • Breach refers to the failing of the duty of upholding a contract. • A loan reactivation letter is a document that is sent from the mortgage lendor that remedies the mortgage loan by reactivating it. • Biggs v. Smith, was a case that reached the conclusion that a recorded mortgage provides clear evidence of the debtors attempt at the eradication of the mortgage. …show more content…
• A satisfaction of mortgage is a document from the mortgage lendor that is given to the lendee that states that when all the payments have been repaid to the mortgage the lien from the property becomes removed.
• United Service Corp. v. Vi-An Const. Corp., was a court case that said that a Satisfaction of a Mortgage “made through a mistake may be canceled” and a mortgage becomes reestablished as long as no other innocent third parties have “acquired an interest in the property.” • “Inequitable result test” Rule# 5 5) where there was intent to make a timely payment, and it was attempted and or steps taken to accomplish a payment was made. Nonetheless the payment was not made due to a misunderstanding or excusable neglect, coupled with some conduct of the mortgagee which contributed to the failure to pay when the payment was due or within the grace period for when the payment was …show more content…
due. Application: Chase argues that Cherry is liable for the breaching of the acceleration clause provision that is in the mortgage. Chase and Cherry had an acceleration clause in their contract which provides Chase to call for the immediate repayment of the loan if not all payments are met. Cherry then breached this when Cherry failed to make the mortgage payments on time as stated on the contract. In addition, Chase unbeknownst to them accidentally filed a satisfaction of the mortgage to Cherry that stated that everything was great. The Court then used the Biggs v. Smith case because this case shows that a satisfaction of a mortgage letter indicates that the mortgage has been extinguished but, this rule would not apply to a debtor’s mortgage rights in the off chance that an accidental satisfaction of mortgage is filed. The United Service Corp. v. Vi-An Const. Corp. case is used in this case as a reference because it shows that a mortgage lendor can still reestablish a mortgage if it was made by a mistake and as long as it would not create an undue hardship on other third parties that had some interests in the property. Once Chase found out that they had made an error. Chase subsequently mailed Cherry a loan reactivation letter with a valid loan number in order for Cherry to make payments to. Cherry then made payments to an escrow account but, unfortunately for Cherry it was stated in the contract that payments to an escrow account would not be accepted. Cherry argues that Chase cannot force a foreclosure because Cherry intended to pay Chase and had also made previous payments that were made out to Cherry’s attorney escrow account for when the payment was needed.
Cherry argues that these attempts would satisfy the Inequitable result test Factors 1-5 but, the one that applies would be #5. Factor #5 applies because there was an intent to make a timely payment and it was attempted or tried to have the payment accomplished without neglect. The payments were intended to all be in good faith towards the lender. Thus, factor number five creates enough of the limited circumstances for the court to decide on Cherry’s favor in order to deny the foreclosure. Since Cherry intent was to pay Chase and also attempted to make the mortgage payments to Chase on time this factor would qualify Cherry to be granted the denial of the foreclosure. In addition, Cherry claims that he attempted to make the payments, but was told by a representative of Chase that there was no mortgage loan number upon which to apply the payments. As a result, the mortgage payments were placed into an account and later into his counsel’s trust account as a mortgage escrow account. In the end Cherry did take steps to make mortgage payments and Chase’s erroneous letter of satisfaction of payment helps Cherry on the fifth factor of the inequitable test
standard. Conclusion: No, Chase cannot recover from Cherry because of factor #5 in the inequitable results test. Thus, in applying this analysis the Court found that Chase’s request for foreclosure be denied at this juncture.
While the widely exposed and discussed trials of WorldCom's and Tyco's top executives were all over the media, one of the most interesting cases of securities fraud was happening without any public acknowledgement.
Gummow and Bell JJ concluded that clause 1 of the Deed signed Rural’s debts and its interests under the loan agreements to Equuscorp. Their Honours observed that the phrase “other remedies for these matters” located in clause 2 assigned a claim in restitution for money had and received . Heydon J agreed with this decision on similar grounds .
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
Jones was party to the contract and mortgage together with Mrs Jones as surety for her husband, even though Mrs Jones was the actual owner of the property. This produced a legal consequence as it affected the appellants with a conduct on the part of the husband in relation to his wife which raised equities in her favour against the indication of a mortgage. The husband exercised undue influence on Mrs Jones to procure her signature to the mortgage which consisted of no consideration. The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant upon a contract to pay interest and principal contained in the mortgage over the property at Walkerville owned by Mrs Jones. It was understood that Mrs Jones executed the mortgage without understanding the effect of the contract and presumed various false misrepresentations. She argued that the mortgage which she s...
Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s judgment in this case is one of much controversy that we will analyse in this essay. The principle laid down by Lord Browne-Wilkinson for the need for causative links between the breach of trust and the loss suffered was then applied in AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors where the solicitor had similarly breached the trust. Pro-Target Target had given a sum of money to Redfern (solicitors) to hold on bare trust until Crowngate had completed the purchase of a property and executed the mortgage. However, Redfern had instead, breached the trust and gave the money to another company, Mirage, by writing to Target to falsely inform them that the purchase had gone through and the mortgage had been executed.
In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of ambiguous language that could allow them to get sued or sue. Consequently, a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits followed this one, which is why it is now important for employers to draft their manuals with experienced legal staff. Even with the best legal team and the perfect wording there is still no definite assurance that an employer will be completely protected from such lawsuits, but taking these preventive measures helps in the long run.
The case Meritor Savings Bank V. Vinson is a landmark case for employee's rights in the 20th century and beyond. This case centered on a sexual harassment claim from Mechelle Vinson against her former employer and boss. Vinson's claim was that she was sexual harassed and was forcibly coerced into sexual acts with Sidney Taylor, her manager, while working for Meritor Savings Bank. The results of this case, helped establish what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is today.
FACTS= On September 24, 1987, Keith Jacobson was indicted on charges of violating a provision of the Child Protection Act of 1984, which criminalizes the knowing receipt through mail of a “visual depiction [that] involves the use of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” On Feb 1984 Jacobson ordered two magazines in the mail of young boys. The magazines entitled Bare Boys 1 and Bare Boys 2, contained material of nude young boys from preteen to teens. Jacobson claimed that he want to order material of 18 year olds and up. However Jacobson’s receipt of the magazines was legal under both federal and Nebraska laws. Laws were constructed three months after the order was filled that banned all sexual depictions of children. Soon after the Gov. started setting up Jacobson by sending him applications to phony organizations that were illegally based.
Leading up to the crisis of the housing market, borrowers got mortgages without understanding the terms. Banks were giving out loans to people the banks weren't sure could pay the money back. The closer to the crisis, the higher the frequency of illegitimate loans and mortgages. Because there were so many mortgages on houses that could not be paid back, millions of mortgages were foreclosed on, and the houses we...
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2011, January 15). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Racial Discrimination in Capital Sentencing: The central issue in McCleskey v. Kemp was whether statistical evidence of racial disparities in capital sentencing violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) was a significant case concerning racial disparities in capital punishment in the United States. Warren McCleskey, an African American man, was convicted of armed robbery and murder in Georgia. His legal team argued that there were statistical disparities in the imposition of the death penalty based on the race of the victim, as evidenced by the Baldus study.
Thomas More’s Utopia was one of the first novels to be written that introduced the concept of a perfect society to the world. This idea is utilised through the fictional manipulation of the text which successfully conveys the personal humanistic and egalitarian views which More holds. This is clearly identified through the novel by focussing on the diverse forms of meaning and understanding the complexity of the text. This idea is employed through the analysis of England at that time and the travel journal of a flawless civilisation. Through the thorough analysis of these two ideas, the novel’s fictitious setting and the relationship it has with the two books is expounded.